Massive military cuts

[Dolph]

Oh no we might have to built schools or hospitals or roads or telecommunications instead

MY SMARTBOMBS :'(

Because those things have the same fiscal multiplier? Really?

Why would it cost nearly as much? Given Iraq and the reasons we invaded there, is it really such a bad idea that our parliament don't get to choose when to commit forces abroad?

The fact that morons voted for lying labour politicans who took us to war under false pretences isn't a reason to hand the responsibility for our armed forces to someone else.

As for the cost, everything from the EU costs us massive amounts of cash, is badly managed and poorly worked out. I think a better question is how could it ever provide us with a better deal given the history of economics within the EU.

As for stimulate the economy, you could for example run the EUDF like the ESA, where every pound that the UK government gives to the ESA gets spent on products and services from UK companies.

Why not give consideration to the idea of switching from EU to EEA membership? We'd save roughly £59bn a year net, which is significantly more than the entire defence budget.

 

[Vonhelmet]

With the exception of a certain Ghengis Khan of course...

Not to mention the Mughals under Babur, or the Saffavids of Persia.

The Mongols passed through and had troops there. The other two empires took parts of the country but not all.

It depends on how strongly you define 'taking' somewhere.

 

[britboy4321]

I simply do not think the majority of the UK population would ever sign off on the loss of British Soverignty that would entail.

I can see the benefits for European Integration along the lines (although not setup) of the United States, but I don't think we will see it happen in our lifetimes, the ideological and historical barriers are simply too great.

Basically you do all realise we have tried this twice already .. with 2 things called 'the league of nations' and 'the united nations'?? That's exactly what they were trying to be.

The amount of power the countries are prepared to give up is so silly/daft low it makes the whole exercise lack teeth . Most noteably the 'security council' veto .. which kind of scuppers 90% of the things it tries to achieve because one of the '7' veto it ...

 

[gettothechopper]

all this isolationist talk is very short sighted,


also i hope they dont cut my project! :-O

 

[Haiku]

I think that as a country, we first need to accept that we're just not as powerful nor, frankly, as important as we once were. We should stop getting involved in costly escapades and focus instead on self-defence and peacekeeping.

 

[Destination]

We certainly can blame the country's disasterous financial state on Labour. They doubled the national debt in 8 years, 50% of the increase was prior to the recession commencing, and they committed and promised billions in expenditure on many, many things that we simply did not have, nor have any realistic prospect of having without borrowing.
I agree to a point, but you have to remember fiscal profligacy is ideologically based as well, it's the reason every significant period of Labour in power has resulted in serious economic damage and massive cuts afterwards.
The problem with the state running services is that they become massively politicised, and we end up with situations such as we have now, especially when combined with the fact that democratic politics is based on fallacy in the first place and we don't have enough protection from it.

Indeed, tend to agree with you on most points.
I found this interesting.



As the national debt soars, due to previous governmental policies of spending beyond their means and saving nothing, debt repayment, and debt interest costs us a miltary double the size, or the ability to build loads of schools, or hospitals, or pay the spingers more free money than they currently need.

The main issue, is that with 5 years terms, it is truely dificult to get a consensus of policy that over a 20 year period would leave the country in a financially stable position, with no debt, with actual resources, with gold we had not sold.
Politicans look after themselves and their own short to medium minded goals. That is a shame for all of us.

 

[britboy4321]

I think that as a country, we first need to accept that we're just not as powerful nor, frankly, as important as we once were. We should stop getting involved in costly escapades and focus instead on self-defence and peacekeeping.

I agree.

The devil's advocate argument says if we 'did a France' and refused to help the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, they'd have made our lives pretty bad in the 100 non-military ways a superpower can (trade tariffs, contracts not awarded etc). Which is exactly what they did to France!

Besides, you're supposed to back up your mates when they need you, not say 'Oh you need help? Well your not my mate any more then, see ya'!

 

[franco_22]

What's wrong with European sovereignty? Are people here actually naive enough to think the UK can survive on it's own? Who's going to take us, the US? You're kidding right?

 

[Castiel]

Great thinking

What do you think the RAF does?

Further to my earlier answer

The Royal Navy supplied almost all the Airpower during the Falkland conflict, the RAF supplied airlift to Ascension and was able to Bomb the Airfield at Port Stanley.

Naval Helicopters supplied antisub defence, attack of surface targets, Naval Harriers gave air support to the Troops on the ground.

Naval Choppers also supported medical and rescue support, Special Forces insertion and other land operations which in turn were supported by Naval Harriers.

Air Chief MArshal Sir Glenn Torpy suggested in 2009 that the RAF should takeover the Naval combat jet operations and effectively disbanding the Fleet Air Arm, I suggest it should be the other way around and we disband the RAF and increase the Fleet Air Arm capability.

 

[franco_22]

Good ol Navy, the pride of this country!

 

[Castiel]

Basically you do all realise we have tried this twice already .. with 2 things called 'the league of nations' and 'the united nations'?? That's exactly what they were trying to be.

The amount of power the countries are prepared to give up is so silly/daft low it makes the whole exercise lack teeth . Most noteably the 'security council' veto .. which kind of scuppers 90% of the things it tries to achieve because one of the '7' veto it ...

Not the same. The UN and it's predecessor was to create a universal forum, not a sovereign Global superstate.

I am stating that to have a fully integrated common European Armed Forces, Europe would have to be a single sovereign state, and the chances of that happening are so negligable to be moot, so the Euro-army question is moot also.

 

[TBirdUK]

Castiel, I think you should check your history - 1 Sqn HArriers supported the ground forces (they are RAF) as did the Chinnoks (more of them had we not lost the Atlantic Conveyor. The Bombing of Port Stanley was was critical, not for the damage done but because it showed that we had nuke capable bombers that could reach UK-Argentina = pulled back a significant amount of airpower to defend against.

 

[Castiel]

The Mongols passed through and had troops there. The other two empires took parts of the country but not all.

It depends on how strongly you define 'taking' somewhere.

There is also Tamerlane to consider, who incorporated Afghanistan into his own empire, also Jayapala Janjua Shahi who conquered the area.

It is untrue that the Pashtun are an unconquered people, historically they have been conquered and subjects of many rulers from Alexander the Great to the aforementioned Persians and Mughals.

Not until the Durrani Empire was Afghanistan really ruled by it's own indiginous people.

Only in modern times has it been almost impossible to subdue the local populations in Afganistan and the surrounding territories.

 

[Castiel]

Castiel, I think you should check your history - 1 Sqn HArriers supported the ground forces (they are RAF) as did the Chinnoks (more of them had we not lost the Atlantic Conveyor. The Bombing of Port Stanley was was critical, not for the damage done but because it showed that we had nuke capable bombers that could reach UK-Argentina = pulled back a significant amount of airpower to defend against.

Like I said almost.

The RAF operated mainly from HMS Hermes, in support of the RN Sea Harriers which is why I suggested that the RAF is superfluous in modern combat operations, their capability could easily be absorbed into the RN.

The Falklands Joint Task Force shows in my opinion that a Naval led armed forces is the way to go.

 

[Allnamestaken]

Ahh there slautering our millatary.

There going to scrap theese planes and tanks?

What happens when we suddenly need them



THERE IS NOTHING WRONG COMPARING to the past.


Why be content and think that another war cant suddenly happen sure it can... the world is a fragile place no matter how stable you think it is or how you think the economy ties us together you would never think the germans would massacre millions of jews back in the 40s would you.


We need to cut this money without destroying our armed forces so much. All this stuff were cutting is really hard to bring back on the table if we need it in the future.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Like I said almost.

The RAF operated mainly from HMS Hermes, in support of the RN Sea Harriers which is why I suggested that the RAF is superfluous in modern combat operations, their capability could easily be absorbed into the RN.

The Falklands Joint Task Force shows in my opinion that a Naval led armed forces is the way to go.

It had to be that way due to the extreme remoteness of the Falkland Islands and the complete lack of a forward land base to operate from surely ?

Would air operations in Afghanistan be as simple with UK just operating from a RN carrier bearing in mind that the Harrier is just about at the end of its operational career and the F35 project seems stuck.

 

[Allnamestaken]

Where in a really bad place atm concerning our millatary all these half build half done projects with so much money spent are going to end up getting scrapped or further delayed -_- as well as the other cuts that could possibley happen.


*cries*

 

[gettothechopper]

the raf have still been intercepting planes nearing our airspace, and are constantly keeping the air bridge to afgan open

they are however talking about scrapping tornado entirely, I think we will end up with a smaller but more capable raf, maybe more transport planes but less bombers / fighters (although the fighters we do have are pretty darn good)

 

[Castiel]

It had to be that way due to the extreme remoteness of the Falkland Islands and the complete lack of a forward land base to operate from surely ?

Would air operations in Afghanistan be as simple with UK just operating from a RN carrier bearing in mind that the Harrier is just about at the end of its operational career and the F35 project seems stuck.

No, indeed I only used it as an example. In the Falklands the RAF GR3 Harrier was only used because the RN could only field 28 Sea Harriers due to budget cuts and the lack of large Carriers so the GR3 was modified for carrier operations. to compensate.

The entire Falklands War is testament to the intiative and improvisation of the British considering our complete unreadiness for this kind of operation.

But back to the question, There is no reason why the Naval Fleet Air Arm can not be expanded and it's capability increased to compensate for differing needs at land and sea, a Unified Armed Forces based primarily around our Navy if you will.

 

[regulus]

- the chance of a major nation threatening the uk is next to nil

Says it all to me. Our military is too big, it needs cutting down.